8GB RAM on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs, Claims Apple

[MacRumors]

Following the unveiling of new MacBook Pro models last week, Apple surprised some with the introduction of a base 14-inch MacBook Pro with M3 chip, which replaced the discontinued M2 13-inch MacBook Pro in Apple's Mac lineup.

Starting at $1,599, the 14-inch M3 MacBook Pro comes with 8GB of unified memory. That makes it $300 more expensive than the $1,299 starting price of the now-discontinued ‌M2‌ 13-inch MacBook Pro with 8GB. Users can opt for 16GB or 24GB at checkout, but these configuration options cost an extra $200 and $400 at purchase, respectively, and cannot be upgraded at a later date because of Apple's unified memory architecture.

This has left Apple open to criticism from users who argue that 8GB is not a sufficient amount of RAM for most creative professional workflows, and that 16GB should be the bare minimum for a machine that is marketed as "Pro," rather than an additional several hundred dollar outlay.

In a recent interview with Chinese ML engineer and content creator Lin YilYi, Apple's VP of worldwide product marketing Bob Borchers has directly responded to this criticism. After YilYi characterized the base M3 MacBook Pro coming with 8GB of RAM as the "one major concern" of prospective buyers, Borchers replied:

Comparing our memory to other system's memory actually isn't equivalent, because of the fact that we have such an efficient use of memory, and we use memory compression, and we have a unified memory architecture.

Actually, 8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other systems. We just happen to be able to use it much more efficiently. And so what I would say is I would have people come in and try what they want to do on their systems, and they will I think see incredible performance. If you look at the raw data and capabilities of these systems, it really is phenomenal. And this is the place where I think people need to see beyond the specs, and actually go and look beyond the capabilities, and listen to trusted people like you who have actually used the systems.

People need to look beyond the specifications and actually go and understand how that technology is being used. That's the true test.

While the 14-inch MacBook Pro with 8GB of unified memory is $300 more expensive than the M2 13-inch MacBook Pro it replaces, there are a number of other benefits worth considering aside from the faster processor, such as the larger, brighter mini-LED Liquid Retina XDR display, support for 120Hz ProMotion refresh rates, and better battery life. Other improvements include additional ports, a better 1080p FaceTime HD camera, a six-speaker sound system, Wi-Fi 6E support, and Bluetooth 5.3.

What do you think about the 8GB of unified memory supplied in the base configuration of M3 MacBook Pro? Does it suit your requirements, or make the "Pro" machine grossly underpowered for your use case? Let us know in the comments.

Article Link: 8GB RAM on M3 MacBook Pro 'Analogous to 16GB' on PCs, Claims Apple

 

[BarbaricCo]

8Gb > 16Gb
24” > 27”

…

 

[Darajavahus]

Since it is unified is it analogous to 16GB RAM and 8GB VRAM?

 

[andrewxgx]

tell that to Chrome developers

 

[leman]

Well, that's just embarrassing... should have rather stayed quiet on this.

 

[HyperFlow]

Does anyone have one of the modern machines? How much RAM does the system take up and how much is generally left for user apps?
I’m not an intensive user and I’m wondering if I could get by with the 8GB standard

 

[apocalyarts]

That might be true for browsing in Safari but that's about it. As soon as it gets graphical, 8GB are just 8GB. Most modern PC games are barely optimized console ports that eat up A LOT of RAM. For example, Forespoken by Square-Enix wants at least 16GB of RAM, but recommended are 24GB. And it's still mediocre.

 

[klasma]

Amusingly, I’m still fine with 8 GB on a PC.

 

[chucker23n1]

Comparing our memory to other system's memory actually isn't equivalent, because of the fact that we have such an efficient use of memory, and we use memory compression, and we have a unified memory architecture.

Windows has memory compression.

Actually, 8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other systems. We just happen to be able to use it much more efficiently.

There’s some truth to that, but it’s kind of a stretch. 16 GiB of data is 16 GiB of data no matter how you slice it. Yes, you can compress some of it, or be fast at paging some of it out and back in, or use machine learning to figure out which of that data you actually need, but you could also simply fit all that data in, no compression, no paging, no tiering, all of which come with overhead.

So it’s a “it’s not as bad as it sounds” kind of answer.

 

[Lyrics23]

Fast and efficient is nice, but 8GB is not 16GB. It doesn’t even take that many Safari tabs to hit 8GB, and even fairly light users can hit that.

Inevitably increasing memory demands in the future also doesn’t speak well of 8GB as base.

 

[abatabia]

Or they can stop being petty and make 16 the base.

 

[Six0Four]

8gb for anything over $750 is an insult to buyers.

 

[MazingerZND]

You're holding it wrong.

 

[oldmacs]

Yeah... no.

 

[podycust]

Well I wish they fix would how windowserver over time eats up more and more ram! So 8gb isn’t enough

 

[mac-rumorist]

Tend to agree 16GB is minimum functional 'many apps open at once' workflow, but in general would simply prefer user-expandable for any 'consumable'. Using MBA 16GB.

 

[Hastings101]

Does anyone have one of the modern machines? How much RAM does the system take up and how much is generally left for user apps?
I’m not an intensive user and I’m wondering if I could get by with the 8GB standard

I had an 8GB M1 Mac Mini and then an 8GB MacBook Air and both were perfectly usable. I even played games and used Parallels (windows virtual machine) to play older games. No noticeable issues. 8GB is still enough for someone who uses Safari/Office/Pixelmator, AKA almost all Mac users in reality, in my opinion.

Obviously if you run a photo studio or do some intense AI work or anything else where your computer is your livelihood 8GB would be stupid (just to stop the replies I see coming).

 

[madebybela]

I had an 8GB M1 Mac Mini and then an 8GB MacBook Air and both were perfectly usable. I even played games and used Parallels (windows virtual machine) to play older games. No noticeable issues. 8GB is still enough for someone who uses Safari/Office/Pixelmator, AKA almost all Mac users in reality, in my opinion.

Obviously if you run a photo studio or do some intense AI work 8GB would be stupid (just to stop the replies I see coming).

8GB might be easier to stomach on a sub $999 M1 MacBook Air/Mac mini purchase, but on a $1500+ MacBook Pro? I dont think so.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

tell that to Chrome developers

Chrome developers should be web developers. Deciding to NOT use the open standards is on them and their fixation with the new IE.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Wow. Just, wow.

You may argue about executable (and by implication, OS) memory footprint, but the size of the data you are operating on is what it is. Unless they are claiming they are somehow compressing it by a huge factor (they are not), this is just a stupid thing to claim.

 

[Bokito]

Got a 32 GB equipped 2013 iMac and an M1 Max MacBook Pro. Running the same applications they take the same memory. Maybe that super optimised Apple applications use a little less memory, but it's marginal. Even in Safari I don't see a difference. PHPStorm: same usage for the same projects. Games: all the same. Swapping: at about the same time. Yes, the OS is different' Mojave vs Ventura, but on the application side I can't back up Apple's claims.

Apple just wants you to buy a new Mac in 12 months since you run out of memory way too soon. This is just a silly lie to sell more.

 

[Hastings101]

8GB might be easier to stomach on a sub $999 M1 MacBook Air/Mac mini purchase, but on a $1500+ MacBook Pro? I dont think so.

I'm not defending 8GB RAM on something labeled a pro device, it's ridiculous, but it is usable. Apple has such a long history of predatory devices anyway meant to be sold to clueless customers like the old iMacs with the 5400RPM drives, nothing new.

 

[bradman83]

It’s true limited RAM can go farther than it did years ago but that’s mostly due to SSD speeds increasing to the point where the performance hit from using swap/virtual memory isn’t as severe as during the mechanical hard drive era. That being said RAM is RAM, and loading a large 50 megapixel raw image into Photoshop to edit is going to eat into that no matter what compression or swap file trickery you’re using.

There’s no excuse for only 256GB of storage on a pro machine though. Heavy swap usage from the limited RAM will just wear the SSD out even faster and further constrain available space.

 

[Miha_v]

He should try using one of the Adobe programs once.

 

[reklex]

That’s fine. Just don’t say this is a machine catered to professionals then.